Line 824: | Line 824: | ||
::if there is one thing you do not lack, it is verboseness. are you by chance getting paid by the word? -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
::if there is one thing you do not lack, it is verboseness. are you by chance getting paid by the word? -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::AIDS and cancer may not be central to Chopra's "thesis", but certain of his pronouncements on these topics are extraordinary enough to have attracted analysis from serious people published in high-quality sources—the kind of analysis, in other words, that Wikipedia uses as a basis for its articles. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::AIDS and cancer may not be central to Chopra's "thesis", but certain of his pronouncements on these topics are extraordinary enough to have attracted analysis from serious people published in high-quality sources—the kind of analysis, in other words, that Wikipedia uses as a basis for its articles. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} @TPROD, I get paid to do this because no volunteer would put up with this much abuse as a hobby and volunteers tend to get harassed away from the article. My own text is hardly that long I don't appreciate how you engage with me. @Alex - you can use that analysis and sources, but the weight should be in accordance to the facts. I hardly doubt that Dr Chopra has all the critics he does because of 7 comments he made in a book written in 1989. Please do not use 'AIDS and CANCER' and all the suffering caused therein as a way to weasel in a perception about Dr Chopra does not represent his actual viewpoint. [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81|talk]]) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Source request == |
== Source request == |
Revision as of 15:22, 20 May 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Moving forward
Extended content
|
---|
The questions that we should be addressing are 1) Does the body of the article appropriately represent the mainstream academic view of the subject?
If yes, 3)Does the lead section appropriately summarize the body?
5) Does the initial sentence appropriately encapsulate what a reader coming to the article should know about the subject as identified by the body and the lead paragraphs? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thinking on the specifics. Now I'm a bit clearer on your thinking. This is something I can work with. I'm going to address these with massive sources. Standby. SAS81 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Update on TRPoD's breakdownThe last suggestion I made for compromise was: Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, best selling New Age author, motivational speaker and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a polarizing figure, functioning as a spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. Let's work it out? Dr. Chopra most certainly is a thought leader and that is what I now propose as a solution and compromise. Even if you disagree with his thoughts. I think this is a more appropriate and neutral way to frame him rather than guru or spiritual leader (since technically speaking he is neither of those things although he is those things to some people) Here is my third suggestion (in which I am trying to work in your 'Fringe' concerns while still being respectful and neutral, referring only to facts) Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, functioning as a New Age spiritual leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. sources for endocrinologist: 1 " DoctorFinder: Chopra, Deepak, MD. (Agree to terms, then search for Chopra, Deepak in California) 2, 3, 4 Notability as such: major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such 5 6 , in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books. Sources for 'thought leader' - which I am offering as a compromise to replace guru and spiritual leader in the lead sentence only. I dont see how 'new age guru' applies to any of the below. other than it being a pejorative - it's also not a fair mainstream representation of who Dr. Chopra is.
I'm open to finding a better phrase for 'wellness' entrepreneur - but the article is missing this key component to Dr. Chopra's as an entrepreneur and thought leader. SAS81 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
None of these sources I've listed in this section are primary sources, they are all mainstream independent sources. I have more too I just don't want to clutter the board. SAS81 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No no confusion. Lets call it what is is. A mistake on my part and I should have known better given that although I do not have the experience in human medicine the same systems are in place in animal medicine where I have a little more information. I don't agree that sites which list licensing and board-certification are primary sources since they must have oversight. I do agree that these sources are usable as verification. I don't see a commitment to using primary sources. Primary sources can be definitive for some kinds of information.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)) Askahrc. Thanks for your input here. Notable is not generally a term used in reference to sources, so I'm not sure what you mean here when you say notable. What we have to determine is first, if a source is verifiable and then whether that verifiable source is a reliable source for the content we want to add. Sources that are either pejorative or positive to the topic are sources that can be used. We expect to find both kinds of sources. The quality of the source, the weight that source has per the RS sources determine if and how much of that source we can use in an article. The AMA is a reliable source for determining if Chopra is an licensed endocrinologist. It is not a primary source and has oversight. If we want to expand on that information we would need other sources. In terms of support for health claim content peer reviewed papers are not generally used unless they have been reviewed or part of a meta-analysis for example. See WP:MEDRS. Sources are only reliable per the content we want to add. While this article has content that deals with health claims it also has content that does not. The article is now full of possible reliable sources. They are worth looking at for new content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
No problem. I can agree on this. Editorial oversight in this case is not meaningful, and one assumes the person ( possible meaningful aspect) entering the data is not going to be entering false information and is not expert in any way, but a technician. In discussing court documents with a lawyer, I've been told some court documents do have meaningful oversight, apparently, but that's another discussion and one I am not knowledgable enough to discuss(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
Much of the above is abusing "secondary does not mean independent". What that means is that independent does not automatically imply secondary. It doesn't work the other way around--you can't use it to say that something can be secondary even though it's not independent. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ronz, thank you for the clarification, I'd missed the other diff. Sorry for my delay in replying, I agree that this thread is becoming monstrous and suggest we create a new one with a boiled down summary. Feel free to do so, or I can in the next day or so. The Cap'n (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Best practices, primary secondary in contextAppreciate everyone's input. From an archiving perspective, I agree (almost) with Capn's input considering the context of what I was establishing and all sources at this stage are for discussion and 'common sense' assessments. If you need 'better' sources to establish what common sense shows as a mainstream label towards Dr. Chopra, let me know. These sources I am providing at this stage are for discussion and consideration only in terms of establishing facts regarding labels applied to Dr. Chopra. I am using them as secondary sources to establish facts about how Dr Chopra is labeled and perceived. Sure, some of those sources could be primary or secondary, depending on the context they are applied. It's a fact that Dr Chopra is labeled as a thought leader in the mainstream, among other labels assigned to him. That's all these sources show. The phrase 'thought leader' is no more or less meaningful than the label 'guru'. Any phrase or label that is applied to Chopra is going to be just as meaningful or meaningless as any other phrase. I believe the article requires showing mainstream labels and perspectives around this controversial figure - i believe it's the only way it can be neutral. Tech Crunch, sure, by itself that's a weak source if my argument was solely resting on that source, but the point was that even briefly mentioned in passing in an unrelated article that is NOT promoting Dr Chopra, he is still referred to as a 'thought leader'. Kellog's is a notable institution that trains 'thought leaders' and are synonymous with 'leadership' in their sector with global credibility as such. Therefore, they act as a secondary source to support the argument that Dr. Chopra is labeled as a 'thought leader' and teachers courses in business leadership (dr chopra is prominent in the 'conscious capitalism' movement). I don't think it's genuine to disqualify a global institution as biased because they are in it for the money. They have credibility producing leaders and offering leadership and Dr. Chopra is prominently apart of their institution because he is notable for thought leadership. Gallup is unusually high quality institution that actually defines mainstream. There is absolutely no reason to put suspicions on Gallup for having Dr Chopra as a Senior Scientist on wellness and reference him as a thought leader in that sector. If Guru was the accepted mainstream term, then I would expect Gallup and Kellog's to be listing Dr Chopra as a New Age Guru for their New Age course and Gallup's Astrology section. (sarcasm) The AMA source was to establish not Dr. Chopra as an endocrinologist, but rather as maintaining an office practice (I think it was JPS who asked for evidence he maintains an actual practice, instead of just a vanity license). Now that we have established Dr Chopra both as a practicing physician and an endocrinologist, prominently mentioned as such in books by notable scientists specifically for his contributions to endocrinology and in mainstream media I believe these sources are satisfied but please advise what source would work better. I'm signing off for today and just wanted to leave these thoughts. If the Capn is willing, I look forward to participating in his suggestion for best practices for reviewing and assigning sources. Appreciate everyone's time. SAS81 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with some points TRPoD, but would clarify that as far I understand notability is the baseline, what determines if an article can be included in Wikipedia in the first place. The lead must summarize the body of the article, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" so the body will be much more than what has been considered notable about Chopra. "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Maybe we could substitute significant for notable in the context of what is most important in the article. Important for all editors to have the same understanding seems to me which might head off potential conflict later(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC))
Academic sources are obviously the best to use in any context on Wikipedia. That's not to say we can't use other sources, only that we shouldn't be using them as a counter/rejoinder/balance/replacement for academic sources. There are subareas of Wikipedia (Pokemon comes to mind) where this best-practice is eschewed largely because academia has ignored the subject, but we don't have that problem for this topic where many academic sources have commented on Chopra. The best thing to do is find acknowledged experts in medical, scientific, and media studies who have analyzed the larger context of Chopra and base our article on those sources. Where appropriate, we can add the commentary of believers in alternative medicine, quantum quackery, and New Age religion as long as we are clear that this is what they believe. Uncontroversial biographical details can be sourced more easily (e.g. the fact that Chopra has a medical license), while controversial details will need to be properly weighted according to the context (e.g. the claim that Chopra is practicing medicine is not found in the best sources about Chopra because of his advocacy of alternative medicine and pseudoscience so either leave out this altogether or follow the sources that are most reliable in discussing this issue which would be sources that evaluate the claims of medical practices, e.g., quackwatch). jps (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Trying to decide in advance which publications might make good sources is perhaps not the best use of our time: it will always depend on what is being sourced. Baer's article (it is Baer not Boer, there is a fault in some of the publisher's metadata) is already well used in the article; so is Time; Quackwatch is nearly always a top source on altmed topics. All are potentially very good sources, though if Time had advanced (say) some claims of medical effectiveness, then it would not be a good, WP:MEDRS source for that. In general, this Talk page is getting very bloated to little point. I'd like to see some concrete proposals for textual changes - I think that may move things in a more productive direction. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
|
BLP Noticeboard
Template:BLP noticeboard SAS81 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Brought back here
Not all of this is relevant to all of you so I've created a quick read menu if you want to get to certain things quickly. Sorry its long. I know :/ SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Introduction, why I am hereI am here as a representative of both Dr. Chopra and the archive project he has contributed to in order to address concerns regarding what we believe to be a genuinely misleading and biased article on Deepak Chopra, M.D. This is my job and it’s important to do everything possible to address these problems in accordance with BLP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIOSELF#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself I also want to thank user JPS particularly in this regard and I believe he and I have set a good standard for how a [dialogue can happen.] SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) see extended content 1 for more
RequestI am hoping to encourage some savvy neutral editors to come in and help, listen to our concerns, share theirs and find a neutral consensus. SAS81 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ConcernsMy concern here is that a majority of the current editors on the article have stated very strong, diverse suspicions regarding Dr. Chopra and there is a great deal of ambiguity expressed amongst them on how neutrality policies get applied to the article. See extended content 2 for more
Making things easier for comment and participationWe have plenty more sources coming (I could also use a little help in terms of the best practices of how I can easily list and supply the community with them. I do have my sandbox but any suggestions also helpful) but here are the key topics that could use some help in talk. Here is my suggestion for further compromise, and satisfying both BLP and Fringe while stating nothing but sourced facts. Deepak Chopra is an Indian American endocrinologist, author, thought leader, and 'wellness' entrepreneur. Chopra is a controversial figure, acting as a New Age spiritual leader to some, and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. This is being discussed on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Update_on_TRPoD.27s_breakdown Would love to listen to any concerns on this. Thanks in advance. SAS81 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Well you could do something notable, get an article written about you, find serious problems with it, then follow the steps laid on BLP to address these issues and find yourself here too. I'm not getting any treatment here that is not offered to anyone else. Also, let's have a productive conversation. Thank you. SAS81 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sending me a link to a policy page over and over is not what I call answering a question. Threatening me with an AE, then filing a COI noticeboard is also not answering questions. SAS81 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for participating. I'm arguing specifically that the article does not reflect the full mainstream view of Dr. Chopra with too much UNDUE on criticisms (the entire article is a criticism even before we get to the section called 'skepticism'). I'm extremely concerned by the amount of weasel words in the article and the eagerness to frame Dr Chopra as a charlatan as much as possible without coming right out and saying it. I'm not arguing that his approach is medically proven, that's not my job, but I am arguing that his approach in medicine has mainstream acceptance and that he is known for that. Additionally, since Dr. Chopra is an unusually prolific individual who is incredibly famous, his work as a physician is just one part of what he does. Even many of his books are based on historical or mythic fiction (outside of medicine) and he is a notable (philosopher, new age guru, motivational speaker dont know how best to frame it) individual who represents and articulates a view point on consciousness that also is outside of his medical career. He also is quite a notable entrepreneur (which is different than just 'enjoying business success') It looks like editors on the page want to apply Fringe to ALL of his biography, and to be honest I'm still having a hard time seeing actually 'where' it applies to his biography. As for sources, yes I have too many of them! Problem I am having is making these sources available in context to the discussion. When I put sources in the discussion to show notability, the sources seem to get discounted for reasons that do not appear to be factually correct (clinton, gorbachev, gallup not notable or credible, etc) . In my sandbox they seem to get ignored. How do I solve this? SAS81 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who knows the subject can say he is not notable for being an endocrinologist or a physician, as major doctors and scientists such as Candace Pert and Rudolph E. Tanzi have both mentioned him extensively as such 5 6, in addition to it being a major component of his many best selling books. Additionally, the sources I have already provided show him squarely in the mainstream POV. He is a senior scientist for gallup, which is determines what the mainstream view actually is. One US president as mentioned his contributions as a 'pioneer' of alternative medicine (which is technically an incorrect title, Dr. Chopra does not practice alternative medicine) and Gorby mentions he is a notable physician and philosopher. Additionally and to his direct notability - Dr. Chopra was an official attendee at the Clinton Global Initiative, alongside some of the most notable global and thought leaders in the world. This is an essential fact to Dr. Chopra's biography. Please explain how Fringe requires us to omit notable facts from notable sources regarding a BLP, I'm literally stumped on that one. This article completely fails to show why and how Dr. Chopra is popular and why he is considered a global thought leader. It leans solely on criticisms that are solely published as 'suspicions' and not facts. Are you suggesting that Fringe guides us to make the reader suspicious regarding a BLP? Are you denying that he is notable and prominent as anything other than a quack or are you saying that's what WP Fringe directly and specifically guides the editor to assume? SAS81 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I think otherwise.
So if notable prominent mainstream academics or leaders mention his work specifically in endocrinology, AND he mentions it in numerous best selling books AND a medical journals AND he teaches courses at the university level, AND maintains an office practice, AND is a notable board member, advisor, consultant to major mainstream institutions (such as gallup) AND have mainstream news coverage mentioning him as an endocrinologist for the past 20+ years how can you honestly determine that he is not notable for being a physician? Just a heads up - I'm not saying that he is 'only' a physician. He also does tons of other stuff which makes this challenging. Please explain your thinking without relying on original research or personal peer review, but based on sources only. SAS81 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
|
suggestion
I'm all for archiving the majority of this talk page, and keeping everything from number 10 "Moving Forward" posted by TPRoD on. This is getting cluttered and I see how I may have participated in that unwillingly. I think we can pick up the BLP noticeboard and everything else easily by following TPRoD's lead and taking it from there. I dont know how to archive these and I assume I probably shouldn't, but all for if someone else does. SAS81 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is an automatic archiving system that should kick in if no one decides to do it in the meantime. jps (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Deaths from Ayurvedic Medication
the discussion has wavered far off from the subject of the initial post, for which there is wide consensus that there is not appropriate sourcing to include in this article at this time
|
---|
There have been deaths attributed to Ayurvedic Medications from the highly reputable source Center for Disease Control. "Although approximately 95% of lead poisoning among U.S. adults results from occupational exposure (1), lead poisoning also can occur from use of traditional or folk remedies (2--5). Ayurveda is a traditional form of medicine practiced in India and other South Asian countries. Ayurvedic medications can contain herbs, minerals, metals, or animal products and are made in standardized and nonstandardized formulations (2). During 2000--2003, a total of 12 cases of lead poisoning among adults in five states associated with ayurvedic medications or remedies were reported to CDC (Table). This report summarizes these 12 cases. Culturally appropriate educational efforts are needed to inform persons in populations using traditional or folk medications of the potential health risks posed by these remedies. The first three cases described in this report were reported to CDC by staff at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center at Dartmouth Medical School, New Hampshire; the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program; and the California Department of Health Services. To ascertain whether other lead poisoning cases associated with ayurvedic medicines had occurred, an alert was posted on the Epidemic Information Exchange (Epi-X), and findings from the cases in California were posted on the Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) listserv. Nine additional cases were reported by state health departments in Massachusetts, New York, and Texas (Table)." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry it wasn't loading Skinnytony1 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd repeat, that unless the source specifically refers to Chopra, including such information is WP:OR and something we do not do in Wikipedia articles. As another example; we also could not say that because some people die from use of a prescribed medication of some sort; my local GP is at fault for prescribing that medication. The source must say specifically that my GP prescribed a medication that is implicated in a death(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC))
The lawsuit mentioned at Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health#Flint may be pertinent here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the comment be removed. BLP refers to talk pages as well as articles which is easy to forget when in discussion mode.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
While I do appreciate the sense of humour, I don't appreciate the libelous statement so I'll give it few hours then either delete or see if I can get an admin to do so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
My comment was not in reference to anything you said It was directed at another editor's comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)) |
Proposed Changes
Proposal by COI editor. Roundly rejected. Suggested reading for the COI editor to not make such incompatible suggestions again. Waste of time for anyone else to bother with.
|
---|
This section is intended list out specific changes to the article with a justification of the sources used to justify that change. This is not intended to be a section to propose new sources and examine their quality indefinitely (we can do that in the many sections above), this is for clear, concise arguments of changes backed up by sources. The Cap'n (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Proposal for lead - my version of neutrality and fringeDeepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, prominent author and speaker. Representing what he calls the ‘wellness’ lifestyle, Deepak Chopra functions as a mainstream cheerleader for integrating western medicine with alternative mind body practices such as yoga and meditation. A notable entrepreneur and business leader, Deepak Chopra has become a prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement and promotes ‘wellness’ as including a successful financial lifestyle. A polarizing figure - Deepak Chopra acts as a thought leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others. Time Magazine called him a ‘magnet for criticism’ and Richard Dawkins has criticized his usage of ‘quantum physics’ in his explanations of consciousness. Hans Baer referred to him as a ‘New Age Guru’ and others have been suspicious of his blend of capitalism and alternative medicine. thoughts appreciated. SAS81 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
If we are going to collaborate, just saying 'no' without making a contribution or sharing your thinking is not helpful. @Alex explain me your thinking, why is 'new age guru' okay to be attributed in Wikipedia's voice but not 'mainstream cheerleader', 'notable entrepreneur', 'prominent voice' ? Those are all labels that describe facts about Dr. Chopra in a respectable way. He is world famous, you can't take his fame and his notability of him away when they are intrinsic to who he is. It's simply a fact that he is accomplished, love him or hate him. This entire article fails to mention many facts and contexts regarding Dr. Chopra. Yes of course the negative things are attributed, those are opinions of Dr. Chopra, and not 'facts'. It is not my opinion that Dr. Chopra is a 'thought leader' and I even attributed that as well (a thought leader to some, a promoter of dangerous ideas to others..) right now, the article serves the reader to discover only what Dr. Chopra's critics think of him and how they interpret his ideas. Again, what does my proposal leave out? SAS81 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for all of you. If I make a suggestion - it's to show you my thinking. I'm not saying "hey someone go copy and paste my edit into the article!" so telling me 'NO!' when I'm asking you all to collaborate is not helpful. It's meant to be something to build upon. Don't like a word? then take it out and explain why. None of you are acknowledging the compromises I am making and words like 'cheerleader' have also been suggested by JPS in terms of finding a better label for Dr. Chopra. You're informing me that my statement is biased, and I accept that liklihood of my position, but that does not remove your bias as skeptics - so I'm willing to work on a compromise.
@Roxy - it's a fact that Dr Chopra is famous and is known for 'encouraging' something. You're all fine with calling him a 'new age guru' to account for that. I'm trying to come up with a better label that is not a pejorative that is used by his critics. @all of you - what would be helpful is if you could be specific. If you're not specific, then it just looks like you want me out of here because your skeptics and don't believe any other POV should be on the page. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra is an Indian American physician, prominent author and speaker.Please tell me the problems with this, explain your thinking about this sentence. these are facts. I am offering the word 'prominent' as a compromise so as to account for his fame in a way that is acceptable. I've also offered to shorten it and I retracted my previous requests! SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Representing what he calls the ‘wellness’ lifestyle, Deepak Chopra functions as a mainstream cheerleader for integrating western medicine with alternative mind body practices such as yoga and meditation.This sentence is comprised of facts. by 'mainstream' it just means 'famous'. Don't like the word? take it out. 'wellness' i am too offering as a compromise. Technically the term is 'integrative medicine' but there is no consensus around that term here so I found a word and attributed the meaning to Dr Chopra, as a compromise. the remainder of the sentence is still factual and tells us facts about Dr. Chopra. What is the problem with this sentence specifically?SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
A notable entrepreneur and business leader, Deepak Chopra has become a prominent voice in the conscious capitalism movement and promotes ‘wellness’ as including a successful financial lifestyle.I can understand some problems with this sentence because I introduced 'conscious capitalism' into it. but this is a simple discussion, you can ask me questions but it's also a fact! Dr. Chopra simply IS a business leader and prominent business leaders and institutions refer to him that way. Currently the article just stops short of calling him a charlatan out to make a buck. This misleads the reader. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
A polarizing figure - Deepak Chopra acts as a thought leader to some and a promoter of dangerous ideas to others.This is a FACT. are editors here suggesting that we do not inform the reader that to some people Dr Chopra is a thought leader? Am I not including WPFringe by saying that to others he promotes dangerous ideas? Please don't tell me what voice an encyclopedia should have when none of you seem to be aware of what voice a neutral statement should take. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm listening and making compromises, how come you're not?Please post your comments about that HERE and keep the FOC above. thanks SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Specifically - if I ask "What are the problems with this sentence" I dont mean 'Why arn't you posting this?' I just mean explain your thinking so I can work with you. SAS81 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC) @Atama: I appreciate your advice and fair judgement. I seem to be in a position to lose no matter what I do to compromise. First they ask me to focus on a sentence and I do and then they have problems because the body does not reflect the request. Then they ask me to focus on a section and I do and then I get accused of writing a PR journal and accused of being a troll?? SAS81 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not willing to "compromise" on the lead as you have suggested because it is absolutely incompatible with Wikipedia content and presentation guidelines, POLICIES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GUIDED TO MULTIPLE TIMES AND CONTINUE TO EITHER IGNORE OR LACK THE COMPETENCY TO UNDERSTAND. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Alternatively, "no."To keep up with the promotional material coming from the paid PR representative would require hours of work. I, unlike the paid editor, am not being compensated for my time. I'm not wasting it any more. Pay me or stop pushing the same points. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
SAS81, Hipocrite has highlighted (above) a well-known problem from game theory. Two boys find a cake. The first boy grabs it and wants to eat it all. The second boy thinks they should take half each. An adult suggests they compromise between the two proposals, so the first boy gets three-quarters. Some of your suggestions sound like the first boy, i.e. making proposals that aren't acceptable and expecting people to compromise on the basis of them. A better approach would be to start afresh with neutral material and language. A good way for a conflicted editor to suggest edits, per WP:NOPAY, is to use the {{request edit}} template. Gather good sources, write your proposal in disinterested language, post it, then give people a few days to respond so that volunteers don't feel overwhelmed. Best to avoid the lead at the moment, because focusing on that has made people suspicious. There is a COI template for the top of talk pages that takes you with one click to the request-edit template. It also gives a header and a date when the request was made. I'll add it for you in a minute. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Recent edits: GA?
I note CorporateM has recently performed a bold edit on this article, removing a large amount of its more weakly-sourced content, copy editing, and making various other changes. The (much discussed) lead has also been re-worked. Overall, I think this improves the article (I have just done some minor tidying-up edits afterwards). I wonder, is it time to think of taking this article towards being a GA? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it still has a ways to go to meet the GA standard, but it is close enough that it would be worthwhile to start aiming for it. The first thing that comes to mind is that all the sources need to be checked one-by-one. For example, citation 35 and 37 look like they may be bordering on advocacy sources. Number 60 needs an accessdate. Citation 64, yuck. And there are still quite a few default bio-type pages that are posted on third-party websites, but are the types of places that repost bios provided by the article-subject. Some of these I did not remove on my first read-through, because the article-text looked like something worth keeping if we can find better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 08:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be better to nix the "and alternative medicine" part in the first sentence to avoid the double "and"? I just started reading our page on New Age and I got the sense there was some redundancy between the two (alternative medicine being one outlet for a New Age philosophy?). I know very little about the topic... CorporateM (Talk) 08:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you guys consider putting "New Age Guru" back? If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much. It frames him so well. Pretty please? ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose the word "guru" has been much discussed and there is consensus for it. I have been wondering about "celebrity" too, since that seems in the sources a fair amount. I agree we can ditch CAM from the first sentence to avoid the double "and" -- we mention CAM in the next sentence anyway. I've tried an edit - see what you think ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you - and all joking aside, I do think the page has been improved noticeably today. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Normally I would think of "guru" as promotional, but in this case there are strong sources for it and being a "guru" seems to be his primary claim to notability. I might be of a different opinion after reading more. CorporateM (Talk) 13:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you - and all joking aside, I do think the page has been improved noticeably today. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I suppose the word "guru" has been much discussed and there is consensus for it. I have been wondering about "celebrity" too, since that seems in the sources a fair amount. I agree we can ditch CAM from the first sentence to avoid the double "and" -- we mention CAM in the next sentence anyway. I've tried an edit - see what you think ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Can you guys consider putting "New Age Guru" back? If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much. It frames him so well. Pretty please? ;) -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
what is the reason for mentioning chopra's "wealth" in the first paragraph, and what is the basis of comparison on which someone says he is one of the "wealthiest" new age figures? do we have comparables? seems like an implied criticism somehow, like he is in it for the money, which if true should be shown by data, not innuendo. Zach bender (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Misc
Does anyone have access to citation 4? "Offit, Paul (2013). Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine" or the full-text of this TIME Magazine article? CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had access to the Offit book when I added that content, but it appears its content is no longer accessible via Google Books; the Time article appears to have been cross-posted here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record: Concerns per extensive changes on a highly contentious article which falls under two arbitrations
I am concerned that a highly contentious BLP which falls under both the TM arbitration and possibly pseudoscience arbitration in which a preliminary DR strategy have been sought here and in which further DR strategies, such as the DR NoticeBoard, have been discussed here has undergone extensive changes with out prior discussion including extensive peremptory deletion of sourced content here. Primary sources are in some cases as here, RS for content and even definitive. Further the removal of accurate and obvious content from the lead that Chopra is an Indian- American and a physician is another red flag. I'd add that in my opinion the article is heavily weighted, especially now and especially given the lead, to discredit another human being and is unacceptable per our BLP policy. Further the article is not even remotely stable given the ongoing contentious discussions, so GA status is premature. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC))
- I don't know how the changes violate BLP, much less "discredit" Chopra, but I share the concerns about rewriting the lede while the article is under such scrutiny. It seems overly bold and inappropriate given all the recent discussion on the very information that was changed. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think these concerns are ill thought out, premature and inaccurate. The article is improved from what it was, most of the edits have been copy/edit improvements, and despite Olive's claims, the lead retains Chopra's Indian American connections, and has considerable detail on his career as a physician. I'm not sure that Olive has read the same lead as me. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The changes in emphasis and style are rather startling: The first paragraph is very tight, summarizing his notability. The second paragraph loosely introduces him and his career. The third (last) paragraph of two sentences tells of his transition to his current business. I expect that the first paragraph is of most concern. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think these concerns are ill thought out, premature and inaccurate. The article is improved from what it was, most of the edits have been copy/edit improvements, and despite Olive's claims, the lead retains Chopra's Indian American connections, and has considerable detail on his career as a physician. I'm not sure that Olive has read the same lead as me. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- This attempt to filibuster improvements to the article by pointing to irrelevent discussions elsewhere that most parties were wholly unaware of is highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, while due care must be taken for any BLP, and Wikipedia's policies guidelines and policies should guide and police as always, the thought that somehow extra caution is warranted here could be seen as a victory for those that would bring external pressure to disrupt the normal course of Wikipedia editing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the Awards and memberships section it looks to be made up entirely of primary sources, but the nature of the information is such that its significance needs to be verified through secondary sources. You can see my views on these types of sections here. Regarding BLP, it does not prevent us from including well-sourced criticisms, but it does encourage us to "write conservatively" which is why I toned down a lot of editorialized quotes from the media and more work along those lines needs to be done in the body. Like any professional journalist, we should consider it our ethical obligation to give the article-subject a voice against their accusers. Therefore, there needs to be a sentence in the Lead that features his defense and/or the viewpoint of his followers. Chopra himself or his representative(s) are the best suited to provide this particular aspect of the article with the best available source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Given how much concern there was over the COI's interest in the lead, I think it reasonable to expect the same level of caution be exercised by all parties regarding it. From what I can see there is a lot of contention over what the lead does/doesn't summarize, and a clearer body would help provide a better narrative for the lead to summarize. Despite the (rather absolutist) collapsing of the proposed changes section, I think we could do some significant work ironing out the body of the article, where changes do not risk misrepresenting the whole work. I agree that while folks can (and violently do) defend individual pieces of the BLP, the overall feel of it has often not been very objective. The Cap'n (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were going to be mediating. It's got to be a new mediation tactic where the mediator expresses their own personal viewpoints and takes sides. I guess you're not mediating? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is established best practice to work on the body of the article first and do the Lead last, so you can make sure the Lead is representative of a quality article. Though it shouldn't prevent incremental improvement, it's good advice as far as saving any nit-picking for later. I don't really care what the COI does or doesn't want - my interest is in improving articles. I previously bumped into something TM-related and have been having an itch to work on a topic with a negative reception. Editors should chip in in article-space, not the drama boards. And keep in mind, this is suppose to be fun :-p CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were going to be mediating. It's got to be a new mediation tactic where the mediator expresses their own personal viewpoints and takes sides. I guess you're not mediating? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Given how much concern there was over the COI's interest in the lead, I think it reasonable to expect the same level of caution be exercised by all parties regarding it. From what I can see there is a lot of contention over what the lead does/doesn't summarize, and a clearer body would help provide a better narrative for the lead to summarize. Despite the (rather absolutist) collapsing of the proposed changes section, I think we could do some significant work ironing out the body of the article, where changes do not risk misrepresenting the whole work. I agree that while folks can (and violently do) defend individual pieces of the BLP, the overall feel of it has often not been very objective. The Cap'n (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the Awards and memberships section it looks to be made up entirely of primary sources, but the nature of the information is such that its significance needs to be verified through secondary sources. You can see my views on these types of sections here. Regarding BLP, it does not prevent us from including well-sourced criticisms, but it does encourage us to "write conservatively" which is why I toned down a lot of editorialized quotes from the media and more work along those lines needs to be done in the body. Like any professional journalist, we should consider it our ethical obligation to give the article-subject a voice against their accusers. Therefore, there needs to be a sentence in the Lead that features his defense and/or the viewpoint of his followers. Chopra himself or his representative(s) are the best suited to provide this particular aspect of the article with the best available source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM when an editor makes changes this fast with out input as to their suitability, its almost impossible to keep up, input, or even know where to start That you perceive this as an article you want to edit because it has a negative reception instead of what this is, a BLP, does not engender confidence in the neutrality of what you are doing. You are being supported by self declared skeptics which I expected given the way the lead first paragraph, especially now, reads. My point in posting was for the record, and to make clear this article is contentious. This resulting thread proves my point as I thought it would. Such highly contentious articles should remain stable for a fair period of time to be considered for GA status. Clearly this article is not stable. However, I do believe you are acting in good faith even though your edits seem to ignore the extensive preceding discussions on some of the content you added. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC))
aside
|
---|
|
Sources
I was wondering if citation 14 was added by anyone that is still paying attention to the article that may be able to provide the text or vouch for its contents. A Google search shows that the article exists (second hit on the search), but the website is no longer hosting the content (broken link). My library doesn't appear to have a copy in their online archives, nor does Highbeam. It looks to be a reliable source for the information it is cited for, but I'd like to verify it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- [13] Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you!!! I will take a look in a moment. CorporateM (Talk) 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I added an attribution since the source is an interview. Also, this edit is a bit iffy (again coming from an interview) and anyone is welcome to change it back if they disagree. I also noticed that the source points out that TIME Magazine called him the "poet prophet of alternative medicine", which made me think it was a copy/paste of promotional materials at first, but I found other sources[14][15] that are secondary from TIME Magazine that discuss it. It seems this may actually warrant inclusion, though I'm not sure where to put it. Anyways, I have it on my watchlist and I might circle back later (maybe in a few months maybe) if the drama has died down by then. I wouldn't mind bringing it up to GA. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn I wanted to discuss this on Talk rather than revert, but I don't think the removal of that content was necessary. When my justification was that the previous version was not providing a contextual account of the original source, introducing a quote from the original source is not undue. Including the quote on the Ayurvedic stuff right next to an analysis of the dangers of denying medical knowledge gives the impression that was the context of the quote, when in fact he emphasized the medical facts behind AIDS in the same section. That's why the representation is an issue.
- It's true that the source comes from a book Chopra wrote, but the section in question is summarizing that same book. The analysis of the content is from an appropriately secondary source, but it is acceptable (and standard) to use the original, primary document to establish its own quotes and content. The Cap'n (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your analysis of the primary texts or of what is important "context" is immaterial - we follow the analyses in secondary sources. This is in a section about "alternative medicine", and Schneiderman's point is about evidence and ethics wrt HIV/AIDS treatment, so your addition was also off-topic. Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view, whereas the real context here is that mixing real medicine with nonsense gives you: nonsense. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't have any analysis of the primary texts, I included what was actually said in them and left the secondary sources to do the analysis. Everything in that paragraph was in reference to Chopra's comments on AIDS from his Quantum Healing book, so referencing what Chopra said about AIDS in Quantum Healing is not only on-topic and leaves the secondary analysis coherent, it's necessary for accuracy. Also, arguing that we need to exclude any source that doesn't make the subject look adequately insane is itself POV and very much against BLP. Many of Chopra's views may seem silly, but that doesn't mean we can exclude the ones that aren't just to emphasize illegitimacy. The Cap'n (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Primary sources are generally allowed for explaining the point-of-view of the article-subject, so long as they are not used to substantially alter the weight of the arguments. That is a case where you would have to take a look at the article as a whole and see if primary sources are used excessively in a manner that turns the page into a kind of advocacy for the article-subject's point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, and they have no bearing on the efficacy or ethical status of Chopra's altmed views on HIV/AIDS, so are at best confusing. If Chopra had written something that bore directly on the Schneiderman point, that would be another matter. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course they don't, and I didn't try to argue the efficacy or ethics of Chopra, but rather included a reference to the source that Schneiderman is talking about (that's about as directly bearing as you can get). There is no Schneiderman point without this source, I don't see how this is contentious. I'm not trying to say that Chopra's views were effective, ethical, magical, or anything, and that's the point. I'm not trying to say anything, I'm trying to accurately represent what the section relates to. Chopra said A, Schneiderman said B in response. We can't post B without a reference to A. I'm not looking to edit-war, Alexbrn, but I'm not seeing a lot of a solid justification behind these reverts. The source does bear directly on this specific topic, the Schneiderman quotes are rebutting a point that is not fully represented in the first place and the content makes no independent analysis nor justification for Chopra's views, it just states them. The Cap'n (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? In Quantum Healing Chopra gives a cursory description of orthodox theories & treatments (which you are quoting, though you might have quoted the most astonishing bit: "no drug is capable of treating it [i.e. AIDS]") and then Chopra segues into his own beliefs which he writes might offer "a move toward a deeper level of understanding, and therefore of treatment." Your edit is in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine and it is those with which Schneiderman is taking issue. You edit introduces content which is (a) irrelevant to the section, (b) irrelevant to our secondary source and (c) a misrepresentation of what Chopra is writing in relation to Schneiderman's points. If we wanted to add relevant material from Quantum Healing, we could add more detail quoting for example that Chopra thinks "cancer and AIDS seem to be cases where the proper sequence of sutras must be unravelled at the deepest level". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm all for including more objective material rather than less, so feel free to include the sutra stuff. Also, yes, I'm including material in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine, which, appropriately, are quotes of Chopra's own ideas. The section is on Chopra's ideas and their reception, my material is Chopra's ideas, Schneiderman is the reception. Just curious, what is your justification for stating that quoting Quantum Healing would be relevant if we were including material that depicted Chopra as "insane" but is irrelevant if it seems to say "there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view"? That's not the way BLP works.
- By the way, the reason why I didn't feel it relevant to bring up Chopra's insane idea that there are no medications to treat HIV/AIDS is that the book was written in 1989, when there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS. This is why context is important. The Cap'n (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- If it's not covered by the secondaries or directly related to a secondary, it's probably undue. From what you are saying, I do not think you understand the source. The only person who has used the word "insane" (repeatedly), or who has raised the topic of Chopra's sanity (as opposed to the sanity of his views) is - you. Another misunderstanding, I am sure. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? In Quantum Healing Chopra gives a cursory description of orthodox theories & treatments (which you are quoting, though you might have quoted the most astonishing bit: "no drug is capable of treating it [i.e. AIDS]") and then Chopra segues into his own beliefs which he writes might offer "a move toward a deeper level of understanding, and therefore of treatment." Your edit is in a section on Chopra's own ideas on alternative medicine and it is those with which Schneiderman is taking issue. You edit introduces content which is (a) irrelevant to the section, (b) irrelevant to our secondary source and (c) a misrepresentation of what Chopra is writing in relation to Schneiderman's points. If we wanted to add relevant material from Quantum Healing, we could add more detail quoting for example that Chopra thinks "cancer and AIDS seem to be cases where the proper sequence of sutras must be unravelled at the deepest level". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course they don't, and I didn't try to argue the efficacy or ethics of Chopra, but rather included a reference to the source that Schneiderman is talking about (that's about as directly bearing as you can get). There is no Schneiderman point without this source, I don't see how this is contentious. I'm not trying to say that Chopra's views were effective, ethical, magical, or anything, and that's the point. I'm not trying to say anything, I'm trying to accurately represent what the section relates to. Chopra said A, Schneiderman said B in response. We can't post B without a reference to A. I'm not looking to edit-war, Alexbrn, but I'm not seeing a lot of a solid justification behind these reverts. The source does bear directly on this specific topic, the Schneiderman quotes are rebutting a point that is not fully represented in the first place and the content makes no independent analysis nor justification for Chopra's views, it just states them. The Cap'n (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, and they have no bearing on the efficacy or ethical status of Chopra's altmed views on HIV/AIDS, so are at best confusing. If Chopra had written something that bore directly on the Schneiderman point, that would be another matter. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Primary sources are generally allowed for explaining the point-of-view of the article-subject, so long as they are not used to substantially alter the weight of the arguments. That is a case where you would have to take a look at the article as a whole and see if primary sources are used excessively in a manner that turns the page into a kind of advocacy for the article-subject's point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't have any analysis of the primary texts, I included what was actually said in them and left the secondary sources to do the analysis. Everything in that paragraph was in reference to Chopra's comments on AIDS from his Quantum Healing book, so referencing what Chopra said about AIDS in Quantum Healing is not only on-topic and leaves the secondary analysis coherent, it's necessary for accuracy. Also, arguing that we need to exclude any source that doesn't make the subject look adequately insane is itself POV and very much against BLP. Many of Chopra's views may seem silly, but that doesn't mean we can exclude the ones that aren't just to emphasize illegitimacy. The Cap'n (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Your analysis of the primary texts or of what is important "context" is immaterial - we follow the analyses in secondary sources. This is in a section about "alternative medicine", and Schneiderman's point is about evidence and ethics wrt HIV/AIDS treatment, so your addition was also off-topic. Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view, whereas the real context here is that mixing real medicine with nonsense gives you: nonsense. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Hipocrite here's the timeline of AZT distribution, which was not broadly distributed until the same year the book was published, 1989. Also, can you define the difference between "false" and "blatently false"? @Alexbrn, again, how is the QH book not related to the secondary when the secondary is writing about the QH book? As far as sanity, you said "Worse, it might have the POV implication there is some mitigating sanity in Chopra's view..." Whether you're referencing the man or his views, excluding content because people might not think he or his views are appropriately decried is not ideal BLP work. Putting in what Chopra said, followed by Schneiderman's analysis of what Chopra said, is NPOV and accurate. What is the problem here? I'm not trying to write a puff piece or anything, just reference the content being discussed. I'd welcome some other opinions. What do you think, CorporateM? Is the inclusion of a reference from the Chopra book Schneiderman's discussing undue here? The Cap'n (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are you really doubling down on your misstatements? Now it's just willful. AZT was widely distributed well before 1989. Your source doesn't say that it wasn't. Please stop making things up. Still further - you said "there were no medications to treat HIV/AIDS," not "no widely distributed..." You said "no." Could you consider writing, perhaps, that you were wrong, just once, given that you were, and remain, wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. After reviewing the sources, I was wrong in my initial statement and AZT was available in limited distribution in 1987, not 1989. Also, I said that as an off-hand example of material I did not include in the article, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned with it, but there you are. The Cap'n (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how many ways I can say this. I'll try one more time: Schneiderman is addressing different content in Chopra's book than the content you included. Have you read Schneiderman? Chopra actually discusses AZT in Quantum Healing so I'm astonished you asserted it didn't exist when he was writing. Are you actually reading these sources? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have read the sources and still think the content makes sense there, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to slow everything down with another wall of text, especially since I can see your point. As for AZT, that was my mistake, as I noted above. I'm okay with leaving it and moving on. The Cap'n (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how many ways I can say this. I'll try one more time: Schneiderman is addressing different content in Chopra's book than the content you included. Have you read Schneiderman? Chopra actually discusses AZT in Quantum Healing so I'm astonished you asserted it didn't exist when he was writing. Are you actually reading these sources? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. After reviewing the sources, I was wrong in my initial statement and AZT was available in limited distribution in 1987, not 1989. Also, I said that as an off-hand example of material I did not include in the article, so I'm not sure why you're so concerned with it, but there you are. The Cap'n (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
New references found
I had forgotten “advice,” a category created in the 1990s when New Age books by Deepak Chopra with wacky titles like The Quantum Alternative to Growing Old began dominating the nonfiction list. I’m pretty sure there is only one alternative to growing old, and I don’t recommend it. Nonetheless, Chopra once had four books in the nonfiction top-10 at the same time. The fact that Chopra’s pseudoscientific New Age blather sells at all is a sad commentary on reading tastes, but we don’t burn books anymore, even terrible books. However, we do segregate them. It’s not a perfect solution.
Source: Robert L. Park. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press. pp. 124-125
By broadcasting his series of lectures, it gave him an unchallenged forum to preach his brand of magical metaphysics supported by deceptive pseudoscience. His philosophy is fundamentally and deeply religious, but Chopra gets great mileage with the media and public by disguising the religion as science. Even mainstream religions don't clamor for equal time because they too are blindsided by the clever approach. When KCET in Los Angeles used Chopra as a fundraiser, he spewed his usual gibberish, the moderator heaped on the usual praise, and the pledges poured in. It was like a New Age televangelical fundraiser.
Source: Kurt Butler. (1999). Lying for Fun and Profit: The Truth about the Media: Exposes the Corrupt Symbiosis Between Media Giants and the Health Fraud Industries. Health Wise Productions. p. 164
Chopra has forsaken rationalism and become a godman with a difference. Instead of fooling people with sleight of hand, he fools them with sleight of tongue. And instead of scamming superstitious Indian peasants, he scams the superstitious American middle class. This recipe has brought him great wealth. After his conversion to the TM cult Chopra was appointed Lord of Immortality by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and became Ayurvedic medicine's messiah in America.
Source: Kurt Butler. (1999). Lying for Fun and Profit: The Truth about the Media: Exposes the Corrupt Symbiosis Between Media Giants and the Health Fraud Industries. Health Wise Productions. p. 237 Goblin Face (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Chopra is also mentioned in Kurt Butler and Stephen Barrett's book A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative Medicine": A Close Look at Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Faith-healing, and Other Unconventional Treatments. (1992). Prometheus Books. pp. 110-116. Goblin Face (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Chopra is also mentioned in the book Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety by Wendy Kaminer on pages 165-167. Does anyone have access to these sources? Goblin Face (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have added the book by Butler and Barrett to the further reading section. Some information about the book can be found here [17], [18]. Butler is a nutritionist and health writer who founded the Quackery Action Council. In his book Lying for Fun and Profit, Butler has an entire chapter on Chopra. I have added some brief quotes above. I suggest that some of Butler's commentary be added to the article. Goblin Face (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ref and date format
I'd like to tidy the refs if that's okay. A couple of things:
Most are last name, first name; some are the other way round. Does anyone mind if I make them first name, last name? There's no reason to put the last name first if the list isn't alphabetical, and they're easier to write if we don't have to change the order.
Also, a couple of refs have a dash after the page, "e.g. pp. 46–". Is that p. 46, p. 46ff? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Meh, I usually go with whatever the citation templates do. The extra dash is often put in there by the automatic citation wizards and has to be taken out manually. I'm glad to see there is more discussion about actual sources (above). As a side-note, it looks like there is a weird run-on sentence in the second paragraph of the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take the absence of objection as an okay to go ahead, so I'll do that during my next edits. I may also try (over time) to flesh it out with some biographical details and info about his work. Some of the sources could be replaced too; it's better to choose a small number of high-quality sources and stick with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The date formats are also inconsistent. My own preference is day-month-year, but I don't mind either way. If people have a preference, please say. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- As far as dates go, I'm fine with any layout as long as the month is spelled out to prevent confusion by those who aren't used to that system. I also prefer last name, first, but it's nothing I'm passionate about. I just think it makes it easier for those searching for specific authors. The Cap'n (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the reply. I had already changed to first name/last name when you posted, but we can easily change back if people want to. I'd quite like to line up the dates as day first, but given it's about someone in the US (where they prefer month first), I'll wait to see if there are objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Park's commentary deleted
"Physics professor Robert L. Park has written that physicists wince at the "New Age quackery" in Chopra's cancer theories." - Is there any reason this was deleted, can we add this back in. Goblin Face (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's repetitive of material that's already in that section. I think it would make sense to remove/paraphrase some more quotes, because there's a quite a bit of "me too" in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Quote Confusion
@Ronz I was not putting my opinion in the quote, but placing the actual quote from the source. Someone had added "where he spouts a few platitudes and gives", but that's not what's in the quoted book. I simply removed the vandalized content and restored the quote. Please check the book and find the reference, then I respectfully request you undo your revert. The Cap'n (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Best keep edit summaries specific to explanations of the edit. I saw all the commentary and assumed that it was part of your explanation. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Not vandalism. The quote is simply from the Skeptic's Dictionary website[19] which differs slightly from the book form. The quote presumably appears in the article because Baer uses it in his paper. It seems further from original research if we use an expert like Baer to identify a relevant passage, but either version of the quote seems fine.
Though unnamed, User:Alexbrn was implicitly accused of vandalizing the article. That's not helpful. vzaak 05:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
New Age guru
I'd like to remove this from the lead, but I see there has been discussion before, so I'm checking here first. Whenever I read it, it jars slightly because it jumps out as either a compliment or insult, depending on your perspective, but not a factual description. That is, it has more connotation than denotation (in this context). SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Option: "is a advocate for alternative medicine who has a large following in the New Age community." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- He has a large following outside the New Age community too. I was thinking of simply: "is an Indian-American alternative-medicine practitioner." The next sentence makes clear that he's a prolific author too, and that he has a large following. So:
Deepak Chopra (/ˈdiːpɑːk ˈtʃoʊprə/) (born October 22, 1947) is an Indian-American alternative-medicine practitioner. He is the author of several dozen books and over 100 audio or video products on complementary medicine, and has become one of the best-known and wealthiest figures in the holistic health movement.
- SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- The thing about "guru", awkward as it is, is that it captures a lot of meaning compactly. "Practitioner" is not quite right. Perhaps sometime like "celebrity advocate of New Age ideas" would work, so long as the next sentence mentioned "alternative medicine". (We shouldn't use "holistic health" as we are now, it's a loaded term here). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Alex about "holistic health" and I have stated my preference for "new age guru" when it was previously removed. Also I'm not convinced that he is a practitioner of Alt-Med as much as an advocate, as I doubt he spends much time over a mortar and pestle grinding ayurvedic remedies, more likely hunched over a Mac keyboard in a plush office, grinding out his next HuffPo article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a loaded term and I'd say it should be avoided. "celebrity advocate of New Age ideas" is even worse in my opinion. We should use the language or terms most often found in secondary sources like these:
- Author and "pioneer in mind-body medicine" Deepak Chopra—LA Times, March 26, 2014
- Chopra is considered one of the pre-eminent leaders of the mind-body-spirit movement.-- Journal of India February 16, 2010
- Deepak Chopra, the best-selling author and speaker on wellness and spirituality—Rocky Mountain News, Oct 11, 2005
- Deepak Chopra, holistic health guru, best-selling author and founder of the Chopra Center in Carlsbad, Calif. –LA Times, Dec 11, 2013
- Physician, educator and best-selling author Dr. Deepak Chopra—CNBC, Sharon Epperson, 1 Apr 2014
- spiritual leader, licensed physician and best-selling author Deepak Chopra.—Reuters, May 9, 2014
- -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- except that most of those ( "pioneer", "pre-eminent", " best-selling") are specifically called out as terminology that we do not use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are there sources other than critics who call him a New Age guru, or it is a term that's confined to criticism of him? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Keithbob: I think your presentation of the sources is misleading in the extreme. To take only the final source ("Reuters"), I assume you're citing this press release (you haven't provided actual hyperlinks, so please correct me if I'm wrong). That source is a press release promoting a meeting featuring Chopra. It is not a news article from Reuters. That should be immediately clear, since the source says at the very top: Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
To reiterate what should be obvious: news articles from Reuters are reliable sources. Promotional press releases reposted on the Reuters website with a disclaimer are not reliable sources. Can you (Keithbob) please clarify whether the other cited sources are in fact objective news pieces, as opposed to promotional material reposted on various news websites? MastCell Talk 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I checked the second-to-last and found this article on CNBC's web site, where it looks like that language came from Sharon Epperson who is a financial correspondent for the news channel.
- The next one up looks to be from this article at the LA Times, and was written by Betty Hallock (who is a "deputy food editor" for the paper), but it's just a notification of a book signing so it is probably just repeating info provided by Chopra's people.
- The next one up I found at this page (you need to log in to HighBeam to see the whole thing) and it doesn't have any indication of being a press release, it looks like an article written by John Rebchook, who is the Real Estate Editor for Rocky Mountain News. I don't find it repeated anywhere else, so it's probably not from a press release.
- It looks like the next one up is from a press release. I can't find the Journal of India article, but I found that exact same language here and repeated at other pages online, which clearly stem from a press release.
- The next one up also seems to be a press release. The LA Times article itself doesn't say that it is, but I found this press release which is the same language, so clearly it came from a press release generated by OWN.
- Bottom line, most of those above are from press releases, but a couple of them aren't. -- Atama頭 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Atama, thanks for doing that legwork - it's very helpful. I guess the bottom line from my perspective is that it would be helpful for experienced editors to set a good example in terms of approaching sources scrupulously (as Atama has). It's pretty disappointing to see obviously promotional press releases presented as if they were "secondary sources" suitable to base an encyclopedic biography upon. Thanks again to Atama for helping to clarify. MastCell Talk 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Keithbob: I think your presentation of the sources is misleading in the extreme. To take only the final source ("Reuters"), I assume you're citing this press release (you haven't provided actual hyperlinks, so please correct me if I'm wrong). That source is a press release promoting a meeting featuring Chopra. It is not a news article from Reuters. That should be immediately clear, since the source says at the very top: Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
some sources and clarifications re: New Age Guru
This article has really come along way and the work speaks to Wikipedia's process. I want to add some clarifications regarding the above discussion with facts, acting as Dr Chopra's archivist. Some of the confusion here is around common misperceptions (some of them so common even Dr Chopra accepts them quite often)
Fact 1: Dr Chopra is not an alternative medicine practitioner. A alternative medicine practitioner implies a license or a practice that Dr Chopra does not have. What is factually correct is that Dr Chopra has been a 'champion' (for lack of a better word) of integrating western medicine with yoga and meditation. Dr. Chopra runs a medically licensed clinic (1A), the Mind Body medical group/Chopra Center is all comprised of licensed medical doctors but there is a very strong emphasis on yoga, meditation and various ‘wellness’ practices. Additionally Dr. Chopra’s clinic teaches AMA certified CME courses on Integrative (not alternative) Medicine under the aegis of UCSD medical school (1B). Integrative (or "complementary" in NIH documents) is the recognized approach for Dr. Chopra (1D).
1A: "Although he uses ayurvedic techniques in his practice he is still a practicing endocrinologist and if a patient presents with hypothyroidism he still prescribes thyroid replacement therapy. He acknowledges that antibiotics and cancer chemotherapeutic agents interfere with the mechanism of disease. However, ayurvedism says that the mechanism and origin of disease are not the same." Source: Goldman, Brian, PhD. .National Institute of Health, 1/15/1991. "Ayurvedism, Eastern medicine moves west", CMAJ. p. 218-221.
→→→→→→→ Two things: first of all, your citation is wrong on several points. The author, Brian Goldman, is an M.D., not a Ph.D. He is not affiliated with the "National Institute of Health" [sic], but rather is a practicing ER doc in Toronto. (Both facts should be obvious to anyone perusing the first page of the article, let alone an archivist). Secondly, and more importantly, your selected excerpt doesn't really convey the tone of the source. Goldman writes: "In building his case against western medicine, Chopra cloaks himself carefully in the mantle of 'rational Western physician'." Thus, the author expresses significant skepticism about Chopra's commitment to Western medicine, instead framing it as a pose adopted by Chopra to advocate more successfully for alternative approaches. I realize that you are trying very hard to avoid conveying anything of the sort here on Wikipedia, but since you cited this source, the least you can do is accurately represent its content. MastCell Talk 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
my response is at the bottom where it is appropriate, please avoid splitting other editor's comments. SAS81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies. I haven't even gotten past "1A" yet and I already see significant errors of both fact and interpretation. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more patient - recognizing that while you are paid to edit this article as your job, the rest of us are volunteers. Try breaking your posts into smaller, more easily discussed segments, and focus on one issue until it's resolved before moving on. These text dumps are not really conducive to any kind of collaborative editing, and instead leave the sense that you're trying to beat down any concerns or dissenting voices with the sheer volume of your posts. MastCell Talk 03:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you to retract this statement "' but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies." that is an aspersion and if you find an inaccuracy, I will retract it. please stop trying to discredit me. I can't please everyone here. I am posting less than once a week, am compiling sources which take up space, and my own comments are hardly that long. I'm just not popular here because of my position. I request you afford me the same respect you would anyone else. SAS81 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you keep posting massive text dumps full of inaccuracies. I haven't even gotten past "1A" yet and I already see significant errors of both fact and interpretation. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more patient - recognizing that while you are paid to edit this article as your job, the rest of us are volunteers. Try breaking your posts into smaller, more easily discussed segments, and focus on one issue until it's resolved before moving on. These text dumps are not really conducive to any kind of collaborative editing, and instead leave the sense that you're trying to beat down any concerns or dissenting voices with the sheer volume of your posts. MastCell Talk 03:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
1B: "Journey into Healing is an accredited course in integrative medicine presented in partnership by the internationally renowned Chopra Center for Wellbeing and U.C.S.D.’s School of Medicine. This experiential workshop is for health care professionals who want to expand their knowledge of mind-body medicine and its practical applications for patient care.
CME credits are available for health care practitioners. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity."
Source: Chopra Center website, Continuing Medical Education Units (CMEs), http://www.chopra.com/programs/journey-into-healing/continuing-medical-education-units-cmes last accessed 5/19/2014.
1C: "A contemporary physician and meta-physician originally from India, he presents and integrates the ageless wisdom of spirituality , quantum physics and medicine." Sources: Friis, Robert H (Emeritus Professor and Chair Department of Health Science - CSU Long Beach), Seaward, Brian Luke (Drexel University - College of Nursing and Health Professions), Dayer-Berenson, Linda. Managing Stress. (Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2013) ISBN:1284036642, p. 185.
1D: "…the second work (of Dr Chopra) places considerably less emphasis on Ayurveda and ‘is grounded in references to Western mind-body medicine, pscyhoneuroimmunology, and physics.’ (Goldstein 1999:112)" Source: Baer, Hans A. Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine. (AltaMira Press, 2004) ISBN:075910302X, p. 128.
1E: "For more than a decade, he has participated as a lecturer at the Update in Internal Medicine event sponsored by Harvard Medical School’s Department of Continuing Education and the Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Dr. Chopra is a fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, an adjunct professor at Kellogg School of Management, and a senior scientist with the Gallup Organization. Before establishing the Chopra Center, he served as chief of staff at Boston Regional Medical Center." Source: Delos Living website, Advisory Board members. http://delosliving.com/people/dr-deepak-chopra/ last accessed May 19, 2014
Fact 2: Dr Chopra is not a New Age Guru. His own statements contradict this directly and Dr Chopra has always rejected the ‘guru’ title (2A), while many sources avoid the term, even when referring to others who do identify as gurus (2H, 2J). It’s also primarily used as a pejorative against him by his many critics. Case in point one editor in this discussion who has been vocal of their low opinion about Dr Chopra specifically said ‘If all this article consisted of the sentence ... "Deepak Chopra is a New Age Guru" it wouldn't have actually lost much’. While concise descriptions are difficult to articulate, it is factual to say that Dr Chopra is a known advocate, champion, thought leader or some kind of spokesperson promoting the integration of practices such as yoga and meditation with western medicine along with his views on consciousness. The problem is what term do we use? This is challenging - but here are some sources that reference his ‘position’ using other language that is more mainstream and neutral than 'New Age Guru'. It's likely some editors will attempt to dismiss several of these sources, but I hope you will give these fair weight against the sources being used for 'New Age Guru'.
2A: "(Interviewer) Motivational guru, poet, prophet, pioneer of alternative medicine, inspired philosopher — which epithet would Deepak Chopra use to define himself?
(Chopra) I am neither motivational, nor am I a guru, the rest are labels. I am an explorer of a domain of awareness people call consciousness. Just like people climb mountains, I explore the mind. Then I report my findings. My background is in neuro-endocrinology — the study of brain chemicals. I am a physician by training. So I have a great interest in how consciousness differentiates cognition, moods and emotions, perceptions and behaviour, biological functions, social interaction, personal relations, environmental situations and even our interaction with nature."
Source: Bhaduri Jha, Nilanjana. India Economic Times, 6/22/2004. Employee loyalty comes first, the rest will follow'
2B: "Deepak Chopra, M.D., a global leader in the field of mind-body medicine" Source: Gallup Inc. “Gallup Senior Scientists/Senior Advisors”
2C: A renowned physician and author, Deepak Chopra is undoubtedly one of the most lucid and inspired philosophers of our time. Source: Gorbachev, Mikhail. Recipients of the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic: Richard Dawkins, Deepak Chopra, Michael Albert. (Books LLC, 2010)
2D: “Deepak Chopra, endocrinologist, lecturer, celebrity and author of many books…” Source: Yachter, Daniel. Doctor of the Future. (Advantage Media Group, 2010) ISBN:1599321564. p. 162.
2E: "...global thought leaders such as Deepak Chopra, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, star chef Rick Moonen and violinist Charles Yang..." Source: Atkinson, Kim. Chopra Meets Cosmology at Colorado's Curiosity Retreats. Forbes website, http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2014/04/02/chopra-meets-cosmology-at-colorados-curiosity-retreats/. Last accessed 4/2/2014.
2F: "The Soul of Leadership’s Academic Directors (author, physician and thought leader Deepak Chopra..." Source: Kellogg School of Management. Soul of Leadership: Become and Engaged Leader. http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/execed/programs/soul.aspx last accessed May 15, 2014.
2G: "Deepak Chopra, physician, educator and best-selling author..." Source: Epperson, Sharon. Deepak Chopra's guide to thinking rich, CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607619, last accessed May 18, 2014.
2H: "Notable conference guests have included President Bill Clinton, who attended the National Governor’s Conference in 2000, Deepak Chopra and alternative health guru Andrew Weil." Source: Appelman, Hilary. Penn Stater Conference Center celebrates 20 years of bridging academia, world. Penn State News. May 5, 2014. http://news.psu.edu/story/314070/2014/05/05/academics/penn-stater-conference-center-celebrates-20-years-bridging last accessed May 18, 2014.
2I: "Dr Deepak Chopra, global thought leader and best-selling author..." Source: Media Update. New global communications platform, State, is making a push into SA. May 6, 2014, www.mediaupdate.co.za/?idstory65004*
*Corrected Link: www.mediaupdate.co.za/?idstory=65004
2J: "Conversely, the publication of Health and Healing (1995a; originally published in 1983) marks the beginning of the “late Weil” – namely the “good hippie doc” and a prominent holistic health guru…
In contrast to Weil, Chopra has become the preeminent figure in a long tradition of positive thinkers in American society over the course of the past decade or so (Meyer 1965)."
Source: Baer, Hans A. Toward an Integrative Medicine: Merging Alternative Therapies with Biomedicine. (AltaMira Press, 2004) ISBN:075910302X, p. 121-129.
2K: "Other people look favorably on me and smilingly tell me that I am a guru (a label I would never apply to myself, not because of its odor of charlatanism in the West, but because the title is revered in India)." Source: Chopra, Deepak. Brotherhood: Dharma, Destiny, and the American Dream. (New Harvest, 2013) p. 15
2L: "Deepak Chopra: Founder, The Chopra Center for Wellbeing; Founder, The Chopra Foundation" Source: Clinton Global Initiative, 2012 Featured Attendees List. http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ourmeetings/2012/attendees/
2M: "Founder of the Chopra Foundation. Deepak Chopra is a world-renowned authority in the field of mind-body healing, a best-selling author, and the founder of the Chopra Center for Wellbeing. Heralded by Time Magazine as the “poet-prophet of alternative medicine,” he is also the host of the popular weekly Wellness Radio program on Sirius/XM Stars." Source: Delos Living website, Advisory Board members. http://delosliving.com/people/dr-deepak-chopra/ last accessed May 19, 2014
One possible consideration maybe to just refer to Dr Chopra the way the Clinton Global Initiative refers to him - as an Indian American author, speaker, and founder of the Chopra Center for Wellness.
I hope this has been somewhat helpful, thank you everyone for improving this article, I'm hoping we can make it a great one. SAS81 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- MastCell- yes sorry about the MD, PhD, thanks for pointing out that citation error. That he lives in Toronto has no relevance to the citation.His article is preserved at NIH and that is where it was retrieved from, nothing out of form there, retrieval from databases need to be cited. In terms of the ‘tone’ of the article, the author comments on many sides of an argument around Dr Chopra - and one of the things he comments on is one of the facts that I am using him as a source for, primarily a fact that Dr Chopra integrates western medicine with meditation and yoga. His tone is irrelevant when we are discussing facts. SAS81 (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, the article is not "preserved at NIH". That's akin to saying that bigfootexists.com is "preserved at Google". The article is indexed on MEDLINE, a service of the National Library of Medicine, which is in turn part of NIH. It's a searchable database of the medical literature, but the article is not hosted or otherwise endorsed by NIH, any more than the millions or billions of other articles indexed by MEDLINE. I'm not telling you how to do your job as an archivist, but this is a really, really basic aspect of the medical literature and if it's unclear then I would strongly suggest seeking assistance from a reputable medical librarian.
Secondly, we do actually have a responsibility to preserve an author's tone and not merely quote-mine his work for the most sympathetic passages. The tone of Goldman's article is quite skeptical of Chopra in places, but you've ignored these aspects of the source and instead used it to promote the official party line. This is the kind of thing that gives paid editing a justifiably bad name. MastCell Talk 02:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, the article is not "preserved at NIH". That's akin to saying that bigfootexists.com is "preserved at Google". The article is indexed on MEDLINE, a service of the National Library of Medicine, which is in turn part of NIH. It's a searchable database of the medical literature, but the article is not hosted or otherwise endorsed by NIH, any more than the millions or billions of other articles indexed by MEDLINE. I'm not telling you how to do your job as an archivist, but this is a really, really basic aspect of the medical literature and if it's unclear then I would strongly suggest seeking assistance from a reputable medical librarian.
- SAS is using a quote from the source to underpin the term and idea integrative medicine. He is not selecting content to paint a picture either positive or negative about Chopra.
- I disagree with your analysis of the source and its tone. Certainly there is some skepticism but the tone overall is quite neutral and mild, and in some places even interested. You are accusing SAS of ignoring the skeptical aspects of the article even though those aspects have nothing to do with what he's discussing. And you are implying your reading of the article's tone is the accurate one. I think you have a valid opinion, but nor more valid than anyone else's.
- I think its fair to ask an editor to slow down because one's editing time is limited. However, many editors on Wikipedia are highly productive for reasons other than that they paid. Selecting paid editing as reason to attach blame seems a little selective, and a red herring.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC))
- Details about citation style aside, I just finished reading the source in question. I know I've caught more than a few sources that were quoted as being highly critical of Chopra, then have actually read the source to discover it was actually a defense of Chopra, with all the accusations but the defense left out. That's misrepresentation. This isn't. The author is, in my opinion, admirably well balanced. He examined Chopra's history, qualifications and criticisms neutrally and without rancor. There were critiques of Chopra in there, but there was also praise, and the author's intent was clearly to be objective. I think we venture into dangerous waters when we ask editors to judge what the opinion of the author was and only include material that reflects that opinion. In a good, objective source there should be numerous points, any of which should be able to be quoted on their own. One would be able to find material in this source to argue that Chopra is an intelligent man, a highly controversial figure, a licensed physician, a practitioner of ayurveda, a successful businessman or a lightning rod for the medical community. And, lo and behold, all of those might be correct. Just sayin'. The Cap'n (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think its fair to ask an editor to slow down because one's editing time is limited. However, many editors on Wikipedia are highly productive for reasons other than that they paid. Selecting paid editing as reason to attach blame seems a little selective, and a red herring.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC))
Recent edits to lead
I've used an inclusive approach to include both the edits of an experienced uninvolved editor and the edits which were made recently to the lead. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC))
- I have boldly replaced the word "state" with "claim" in the lead, deliberately to indicate that there is no evidence for Deepak's assertions, per wp:claim. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- which claims specifically? the effects on physical health from yoga and meditation are well documented. Integrative Medicine is mainstream.The lead still does not capture Dr Chopra's actual ideas, but at least they are closer than before. Dr Chopra does not claim that's a mental process over the physical, but rather an holistic process, meaning 'physical emotional mental spiritual & environmental' all contribute to the well being of the individual. That's not an unsupported claim, that is integrative medicine. SAS81 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
AIDS, CANCER views
- Chopra has described the AIDS virus as emitting "a sound that lures the DNA to its destruction". The condition can be treated, according to Chopra, with "Ayurveda's primordial sound".[34] Taking issue with this view, medical professor Lawrence Schneiderman has said that ethical issues are raised when alternative medicine is not based on empirical evidence and that, "to put it mildly, Dr. Chopra proposes a treatment and prevention program for AIDS that has no supporting empirical data".[34]
AIDS and Cancer are not topics central to Dr Chopra's main thesis, that integrating western medicine with meditation is beneficial towards health so focusing on them in the lead section puts to much weight on ideas that are not core to his thesis. There are some highly selective quotes in the section on Quantum Healing regarding Dr Chopra's description of AIDS and cancer that heavily imply he rejects basic medical understanding of how these diseases operate. This is factually incorrect. Dr Chopra writes about integrating Western medicine, not rejecting it, with meditation practices.
In order to help foster some more accurate representation, below are additional quotes from the book that reflect a more balanced position. I hope any discussion of the book in the article will reflect the actual contents of the book.
Source: Chopra, Deepak. Quantum Healing: Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine. (Bantam, 1990) ISBN: 0553348698
p. 237: “One AIDS patient in Germany has been treated with Ayurveda for two years as part of a pilot program conducted in Europe. Diagnosed in 1984, he is still alive at the time of this writing in August 1988 (80 percent of AIDS patients die within two years of diagnosis); he leads a normal life and is without overt symptoms. …the subjects know that Ayurveda is not promising a cure, but the supervising physicians feel that they are seeing improvements, particularly in the patients’ ability to withstand the debilitating fatigue that saps the strength and will of AIDS patients.”
p. 238: “The diagnosis had been made four years earlier after he came down with pneumonia. Rather than the typical pneumonia caused by pneumococcus bacteria, his came from a protozoa known as Pneumocystis carinii; this disease is one of the most common that strike AIDS patients when their immune systems collapse. He recovered from the attack and decided to change his life. He learned to meditate, and for the first time in his adult life he gave up the habitual routine of long nights, heavy drinking, pills, smoking, and promiscuity that had been attached to his career. (Interestingly, a survey of long-term AIDS survivors shows that all of them have made this kind of “take charge” decision over their disease. Standard medicine cannot explain why this should be such a lifesaver, but it is.)”
Dr Chopra specifically states what causes AIDS and nowhere does he say he it caused by sound mutations. That Dr Chopra may describe ‘how’ Ayurveda would view an illness is not the same thing as Dr Chopra viewing that illness in the same way.
p. 237: I kept one foot firmly planted in my private endocrinology practice - although I felt in tune with Ayurveda theory, I was nervous about the results."
p. 237: This is not yet a cure, but a huge step towards recovering one."
p. 239: "AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, plus its related mutations, which are a researcher's nightmare." “A cold or flu virus is content to let DNA build proteins for it, but a retrovirus like HIV goes one better by blending into the DNA’s own chemical strands, masking itself as the host’s genetic material.”
p. 243: “The pneumonia that an AIDS patient typically catches is caused by a variety of Penumocystis that is present in everybody’s lungs all the time. The AIDS virus activates such diseases from the inside by demolishing one part of the immune system (the helper T-cells), thus breaking apart the network of information that holds us together.”
p. 251: “…Ayurveda therefore pays much less attention to surface emotions than does current mind-body medicine. The whole rationale for treating cancer (or AIDS) with primordial sound and bliss techniques is that they reach the deep levels of consciousness common to everyone, the weak as much as the strong.”
“…Eleanor was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer that had metastasized to the lymph nodes under her arm. She underwent one radical mastectomy, followed by a second; her reaction to chemotherapy afterward was extremely poor. Finding the side effects intolerable, she abandoned conventional treatment altogether, even though her doctors made her well aware that the cancer had now spread to her bones. Patients in this category of metastasis have about a 1 percent chance of survival. As it happens, Eleanor was advised by her family doctor to start meditating in 1986, in the middle of her disease. Through her meditation practice, she heard about Ayurveda. She came to Lancaster for inpatient treatment, where I met her and instructed her in the primordial sound for treating cancer. The results were remarkable. Her severe bone pain disappeared (this incident was mentioned earlier, in chapter 9), and whenever she returned home to be X-rayed, her radiologist found fewer and fewer pockets of bone cancer.
It was far too late for these regressions to have been caused by her earlier treatment. Generally, if a tumor is being treated with radiation or chemotherapy, it shrinks very quickly. If Eleanor survives for two more years, she will enter the privileged ranks of patients who beat all the odds.”
SAS81 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- if there is one thing you do not lack, it is verboseness. are you by chance getting paid by the word? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- AIDS and cancer may not be central to Chopra's "thesis", but certain of his pronouncements on these topics are extraordinary enough to have attracted analysis from serious people published in high-quality sources—the kind of analysis, in other words, that Wikipedia uses as a basis for its articles. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- if there is one thing you do not lack, it is verboseness. are you by chance getting paid by the word? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@TPROD, I get paid to do this because no volunteer would put up with this much abuse as a hobby and volunteers tend to get harassed away from the article. My own text is hardly that long I don't appreciate how you engage with me. @Alex - you can use that analysis and sources, but the weight should be in accordance to the facts. I hardly doubt that Dr Chopra has all the critics he does because of 7 comments he made in a book written in 1989. Please do not use 'AIDS and CANCER' and all the suffering caused therein as a way to weasel in a perception about Dr Chopra does not represent his actual viewpoint. SAS81 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Source request
I'm looking for a source for the final part of the last sentence in the lead: "His views have led to criticism from medical professionals, who say … that he provides patients with false hope that may prevent them from seeking medical assistance." An earlier version sourced it to Time magazine, but I can't see that article. Could someone post here what it says, or do we have an alternative source? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- This?
Chopra has been a magnet for criticism—most of it from the medical and scientific communities. Accusations have ranged from the dismissive—Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology—to the outright damning. Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance.
- Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wonder if that's a strong-enough source for this claim in a BLP. We say that medical professionals say he may be preventing patients from seeking medical assistance, a serious claim for physicians to make of another physician. But it's unattributed – "some have argued" – so perhaps we ought to make it invisible until we find a better source (and preferably more than one). SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine for reporting on the views of "the medical and scientific communities" I think. This was raised before at WP:BLP/N. For a reinforcing source, we had Park on the "cruel" nature of giving false promise, but - I think you removed this? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we should use Time magazine for this, unless perhaps it were reporting what a named physician said. It doesn't even say that physicians are saying it. "Some have argued" could refer to other scientists, or even someone else entirely. Park is a physicist, so it would be odd to use him as a source for this. The point is: if this really is a criticism that physicians make, we should be able to find them making it in high-quality sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is not the view of "a physician" commenting on "a physician", but what the "medical and scientific communities" think of Chopra's views at large as expressed in his wide-ranging writings. Perhaps the problem was the way this community was not best summarized as "medical professionals", which I've changed to the more generic "scientists" (which Park is, if we want to use him). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we should use Time magazine for this, unless perhaps it were reporting what a named physician said. It doesn't even say that physicians are saying it. "Some have argued" could refer to other scientists, or even someone else entirely. Park is a physicist, so it would be odd to use him as a source for this. The point is: if this really is a criticism that physicians make, we should be able to find them making it in high-quality sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's fine for reporting on the views of "the medical and scientific communities" I think. This was raised before at WP:BLP/N. For a reinforcing source, we had Park on the "cruel" nature of giving false promise, but - I think you removed this? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I wonder if that's a strong-enough source for this claim in a BLP. We say that medical professionals say he may be preventing patients from seeking medical assistance, a serious claim for physicians to make of another physician. But it's unattributed – "some have argued" – so perhaps we ought to make it invisible until we find a better source (and preferably more than one). SlimVirgin (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Time magazine is a reliable source for unnamed criticism. WP:BLP does not require that critics be name, rather that the statements be verifiable. The statement is verifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
TM connectedness
Should members of the TM collective participating here be declared on this talk page? vzaak 05:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- What is a TM collective exactly?(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC))
- I was referring to the people listed here. Call it what you wish. vzaak 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you have something to say about an old CU and arbitration case you should say it. If you have concerns about editors here, please be straightforward with out dragging up past case which obscures the issues at hand.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC))
- I was referring to the people listed here. Call it what you wish. vzaak 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Vzaak - you obviously don't know the rule. You do not discuss the failure of editors in or around Fairfield, Iowa to desire to maintain NPOV on any articles. You do not accuse them of having any conflict of interest at all. This is verboten - everyone knows about the conduct and the COI, but it's an open secret - we don't talk about it in public. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)